mcp-server-template
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-server-template
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceOpinionated template for building Node.js stdio and HTTP MCP servers.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server template with OAuth 2.1, RBAC, and audit logging for building secure, observable tool servers.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA corporate MCP server template in Python, built with FastMCP for stateless, scalable deployment behind a load balancer with health/readiness endpoints and JSON structured logging.-
- AlicenseAqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA production-ready TypeScript template for building MCP servers with dual transport support (stdio/HTTP), OAuth 2.1 foundations, SQLite caching, observability, and security features including PII sanitization and rate limiting.413 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server scaffold that features built-in authentication, Docker support, and a comprehensive CI/CD release pipeline. It provides a standardized template for deploying servers with multi-transport support and configurable read-only modes.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready Python template for building MCP servers with enterprise features including registry integration, configuration management, structured logging, and extensible patterns for tools, resources, and prompts.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target completely different domains (PyPI project lookup vs. text word statistics) with no overlap in function or purpose. An agent can easily select the correct tool without confusion.
Both tool names use consistent snake_case noun phrases (pypi_project, word_stats), adhering to a predictable naming pattern. Although not verb_noun, the convention is applied uniformly across the set.
Two tools is very thin for a functional MCP server and falls into the borderline '1-2 tools feels thin' category. However, as a template server, the small count may be intentional to demonstrate different tool types.
There is no coherent domain or lifecycle; the tools are isolated utilities with no way to list, search, update, or otherwise extend the surface. This leaves significant gaps for any real workflow an agent might attempt.